Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Community Health
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process is quite fast and editor give a clear answer and reasoning.
RSC Advances
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent Journal and very good review process
Journal of Hydrology
104.2 weeks
117.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
1
Accepted
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
18.0 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Rheumatology
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.3 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I felt tha the review process improved my paper, there was some external views on the data I'd not considered and the manuscript was improved when a couple of small errors was highlighted. The editorial team worked hard and therer was a quick turn around. The paper was accepted and is now available to be read and downloaded.
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering
25.7 weeks
34.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Perceptual and Motor Skills
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Media, Culture and Society
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Climate of the Past
26.0 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Ecosystems
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The handling editor stated that the review process was long (~5 months) because one reviewer could not do the review and he had to find another reviewer. Additionally, one reviewer had generally constructive comments, but felt the need to insult the authors. These comments should have been censored by the editor.
Ecological Applications
8.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively efficient and we received good and thorough reviews.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Bridge Engineering
13.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Neuropharmacology
6.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Structural Engineering and Mechanics
17.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Economics Bulletin
21.9 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
4.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Marine Policy
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
American Journal of Political Science
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!
African Development Review
39.7 weeks
70.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Engineering Structures
13.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Science
7.4 weeks
81.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS ONE
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
Hematology
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
4
Accepted
Blood
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Transfusion
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
8 reports
5
5
Accepted
American Journal of Infection Control
7.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
Journal of Cultural Economics
21.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is fast and in depth.
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials
5.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
Cytometry, Part A
4.0 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.